Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Invasive Cane Toads’ Predatory Impact on Dung Beetles is Mediated by Reservoir Type at Artificial Water Points

  • Published:
Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Disruption to ecosystem functioning associated with biological invasions can have dramatic effects on the production and biodiversity values of ecosystems. In semi-arid rangelands of Australia, invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) prey on dung beetles that were themselves introduced to promote nutrient cycling and reduce parasite burdens of livestock. Cane toads’ colonization of rangelands has been facilitated by artificial water points (AWP) which provide cattle with drinking water. Most AWP in northern Australia comprise bores that pump water into earthen reservoirs (dams). Dams typically support large toad populations because they allow toads’ access to water without which they could not survive. Here, we ask if restricting toads’ access to water at AWP can reduce toad populations, toads’ predatory impact on dung beetles, and the rate of dung decomposition by dung beetles. We contrasted toad and dung beetle populations, toad diets, and dung removal rates at AWP fitted with dams or tanks as reservoirs. In comparison to dams, tanks provide toads with little access to water. Population densities of toads were five times higher at dams than tanks. Conversely, population densities of dung beetles were 12 times lower at dams than tanks. Mass loss of experimental dung pats after 2 days was 13% greater at tanks than dams. Our study provides evidence that consumption of detritivores by an introduced predator can retard dung decomposition in a rangeland ecosystem. Restricting toads’ access to water at AWP should benefit livestock production by reducing both toad populations and toads’ predatory impact on dung beetles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson P, Hoffman M. 2007. The impacts of sustained heavy grazing on plant diversity and composition in lowland and upland habitats across the Kamiesberg mountain range in the Succulent Karoo, South Africa. J Arid Environ 70:686–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asner G, Elmore A, Olander L, Martin R, Harris A. 2004. Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annu Rev Environ Resour 29:261–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baillie C. 2008. Assessment of evaporation losses and evaporation mitigation technologies for on farm water storages across Australia. Cooperative Research Centre for Irrigation Futures, Irrigation Matters Series 05/08.

  • Bornemissza G. 1960. Could dung eating insects improve our pastures? J Aust Inst Agric Sci 26:54–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan R. 1976. The effect of the dung beetle, Onthophagus gazella, on the ecology of the infective larvae of gastrointestinal nematodes of cattle. Aust J Agric Res 27:567–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham K, Anderson D. 2002. Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers J. 2002. Impact of non-indigenous species on natives enhanced by anthropogenic alteration of selection regimes. Oikos 97:449–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byford R, Craig M, Crosby B. 1992. A review of ectoparasites and their effect on cattle production. J Anim Sci 70:597–602.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christianson D, Creel S. 2010. A nutritionally mediated risk effect of wolves on elk. Ecology 91:1184–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Creel S, Winnie J Jr, Maxwell B, Hamlin K, Cree M. 2005. Elk alter habitat selection as an antipredator response to wolves. Ecology 86:3387–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croll DA, Maron JL, Estes JA, Danner EM, Byrd GV. 2005. Introduced predators transform subarctic islands from grassland to tundra. Science 307:1959–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crooks J. 2002. Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: the role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 97:153–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis A. 1996. Seasonal dung beetle activity and dung dispersal in selected South African habitats: implications for pasture improvement in Australia. Agric Ecosyst Environ 58:157–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Didham RK, Tylianakis JM, Gemmell NJ, Rand TA, Ewers RM. 2007. Interactive effects of habitat modification and species invasion on native species decline. Trends Ecol Evol 22:489–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dohi H, Yamada A, Entsu S. 1991. Cattle feeding deterrents emitted from cattle feces. J Chem Ecol 17:1197–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Doube B. 1991. Dung beetles of southern Africa. In: Hanski I, Cambefort Y, Eds. Dung beetle ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p 135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan RP, Cassey P, Blackburn TM. 2009. Do climate envelope models transfer? A manipulative test using dung beetle introductions. Proc R Soc B 267:1449–57. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards P. 2009. Introduced dung beetles in australia 1967–2007: current status and future directions. Melbourne: The Orica Community Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fay H, Doube B. 1983. The effect of some coprophagous and predatory beetles on the survival of immature stages of the African buffalo fly, Haematobia thirouxi potans, in bovine dung. Z Angew Entomol 95:460–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fay H, Macqueen A. 1990. Impact of fauna on mortality and size of Haematobia spp. (Diptera: Muscidae) in natural dung pads in Australia and South Africa. Bull Entomol Res 80:385–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florance D, Webb JK, Dempster T, Kearney MR, Worthing A, Letnic M. 2011. Excluding access to invasion hubs can contain the spread of an invasive vertebrate. Proc R Soc B 278:2900–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freeland W. 1986. Populations of cane toad, Bufo marinus, in relation to time since colonization. Wildl Res 13:321–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Bernal E, Greenlees MJ. 2013. Interacting biocontrol programmes: invasive cane toads reduce rates of breakdown of cowpats by dung beetles. Austral Ecol 38:891–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Bernal E, Greenlees MJ, Brown GP, Shine R. 2012. Cane toads on cowpats: commercial livestock production facilitates toad invasion in tropical Australia. PloS one 7:e49351.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenlees MJ, Brown GP, Webb JK, Phillips BL, Shine R. 2006. Effects of an invasive anuran [the cane toad (Bufo marinus)] on the invertebrate fauna of a tropical Australian floodplain. Anim Conservat 9:431–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawlena D, Schmitz OJ. 2010. Herbivore physiological response to predation risk and implications for ecosystem nutrient dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:15503–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • James CD, Landsberg J, Morton SR. 1999. Provision of watering points in the Australian arid zone: a review of effects on biota. J Arid Environ 41:87–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koike S, Soga M, Nemoto Y, Kozakai C. 2014. How are dung beetle species affected by deer population increases in a cool temperate forest ecosystem? J Zool . doi:10.1111/jzo.12138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letnic M, Koch F, Gordon C, Crowther MS, Dickman CR. 2009. Keystone effects of an alien top-predator stem extinctions of native mammals. Proc R Soc B 276:3249–56.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Letnic M, Webb JK, Jessop TS, Florance D, Dempster T. 2014. Artificial water points facilitate the spread of an invasive vertebrate in arid Australia. J Appl Ecol 51:795–803. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Letnic M, Webb JK, Jessop TS, Dempster T. 2015. Restricting access to invasion hubs enables sustained control of an invasive vertebrate. J Appl Ecol . doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Losey J, Vaughan M. 2006. The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience 56:311–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack M, D’Antonio C. 1998. Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes. Trends Ecol Evol 13:195–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mellanby K. 1939. Low temperature and insect activity. Proc R Soc B 127:473–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H. 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols E, Spector S, Louzada J, Larsen T, Amezquita S, Favila M. 2008. Ecological functions and ecosystem services provided by Scarabaeinae dung beetles. Biol Conserv 141:1461–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell B, Letnic M, Fleming P. 2011. Managing feral goat impacts by manipulating their access to water in the rangelands. Rangel J 33:143–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz OJ, Hawlena D, Trussell GC. 2010. Predator control of ecosystem nutrient dynamics. Ecol Lett 13:1199–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strickland MS, Hawlena D, Reese A, Bradford M, Schmitz OJ. 2013. Trophic cascade alters ecosystem carbon exchange. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:11035–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tyndale-Biscoe M. 1990. Common dung beetles in pastures of south-eastern Australia. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitousek PM. 1997. Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Webb JK, Letnic M, Jessop TS, Dempster T. 2014. Behavioural flexibility allows an invasive vertebrate to survive in a semi-arid environment. Biol Lett. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2013.1014.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wootton J. 1997. Estimates and tests of per capita interaction strength: diet, abundance, and impact of intertidally foraging birds. Ecol Monogr 67:45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zug G, Zug P. 1979. The marine toad, Bufo marinus: a natural history resume of native populations. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding was provided by the Hermon Slade Foundation. We thank Graeme Sawyer (Frogwatch NT), Tom Nichols (Parks & Wildlife NT), Georgia, and Mick Underwood of Riveren Station, and the managers of Dungowan and Camfield stations for their support. Christopher Turbill and Anna Feit provided helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, University of Western Sydney, Richmond, New South Wales, Australia

    Benjamin Feit

  2. School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Benjamin Feit & Mike Letnic

  3. Department of Zoology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Tim Dempster

  4. Department of Zoology, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Heloise Gibb

Authors
  1. Benjamin Feit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tim Dempster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heloise Gibb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mike Letnic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Feit.

Additional information

Author contributions

BF, TD, HG and ML designed the research; BF collected and analyzed data; BF, TD, HG and ML wrote the manuscript.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Feit, B., Dempster, T., Gibb, H. et al. Invasive Cane Toads’ Predatory Impact on Dung Beetles is Mediated by Reservoir Type at Artificial Water Points. Ecosystems 18, 826–838 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9865-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9865-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation